Unsurprisingly, Douglas McGeorge, past president of the the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons, told the BBC he thinks the concern is "over the top. Essentially this is just about removing a bit of loose flesh, leaving behind an elegant-looking labia with minimum scarring." Oh, well if that's all it is! I mean, obviously, if you want to be taken seriously at a job interview or get a decent table at a hot restaurant, you can't just show up with inelegant-looking labia. Adds McGeorge, "Lads' mags are looked at by girlfriends, and make them think more about the way they look. We live in times where we are much more open about our bodies -- and changing them -- and labioplasty is simply a part of this."  By "this," you mean "a painfully sexist culture that encourages debilitating body shame," right? Because otherwise, you might want to think that one through a little more.

On the other hand, there are women out there who really do need genital reconstruction. Amanda Hess at The Sexist shares the stories of two of those, women who didn't just have "more than enough labia" but serious post-pregnancy complications described by one as "My vagina is falling out of my body!" (Actually, it was her uterus. Also, for the record, that woman had labioplasty while she was at it and reports that it "was brutal. All of 'Dr. 90210''s patients who say it doesn't hurt are lying. I'd rather get my teeth pulled out than do that again!") But after all that suffering, both women describe their new equipment as A) equivalent to a virginal young woman's and B) therefore incredibly desirable. Allison Henry, who nearly bled to death more than once: "We just had a cocktail party to celebrate me feeling healthy. And I do have the vagina of a 13-year-old virgin, with a perfect labia, as a bonus." MomLogic guest blogger Sara: "So now I'm on the mend, with a teenage-sized vagina ... The way things are at present, no man's apparatus, even of the Fisher Price variety, could ever fit down there. Still, I'll try to write a follow up report when it happens. That is, if my husband and I ever leave the bedroom again!"

To recap: These two women suffered severe trauma to their reproductive organs, but the big silver lining is that they now have vaginas reminiscent of girls too young to consent to sex. It's what every man wants, without the pesky statutory rape charges -- lucky hubbies! Sara even jokes (I hope) that her husband bought her cheerleader costumes to go with the new model. Look, I'm all for making inappropriate wisecracks about horrifying things, and any woman who has ever had to say or even think the words "my vagina is falling out of my body"  has earned the right to be seriously inappropriate,  but what the hell? Neither of you squicked yourself out, writing that? Hess puts it best: "I'm happy for you. I am. You went through some bad shit, and now your vagina is back inside your body, and I think that's wonderful. But I never, ever, ever, ever again want to have to think about a grown woman having a 'the vagina of a 13-year-old virgin.' That's some messed up heebie-jeebies shit."

And it's the same messed-up shit that drives perfectly healthy women to pay someone to cut into their genitals for purely aesthetic reasons. Oh wait, I'm sorry, did I say "messed-up shit"? I meant openness about our bodies. Now that our culture is much less repressive, we've learned important information that used to be hidden away -- like that pubic hair is disgusting (on a woman), which means we must wax it all off to avoid offending our sexual partners, after which we might just discover our vulvas are kind of funny-looking and thus require surgery to give us the "elegant labia" of ... children. Such progress we've made! Why, if people had never broken the silence, we'd all still be walking around assuming adult-looking vaginas are perfectly fine! Instead, we've completely eliminated all that old-fashioned shame about our bodies and backward thinking about sexuality. Whew. 

In a new interview in The Advocate, she speaks out in her characteristic blunt manner about gay marriage (pro), her feelings about penis size (she's likes them "well-endowed") and her same-sex attractions. In May, she told the British newspaper The Sun, "I've experimented definitely, but I have never had a steady girlfriend," prompting a spate of wink-wink remarks regarding her apparently lucky husband Josh Duhamel (who's been getting more than his own share of tabloid attention lately).

In her Advocate story, however, Fergie didn't do much to dispel that fantasy that babe-on-babe action exists solely as the lite version of what goes on with men. "Just because I enjoy women doesn’t mean I’m allowed to have affairs in my relationship," she explained.  "I learned through talking with my therapist that it is still cheating even if it’s with girls, so there is a rule there."

So if you step outside your marriage, even if it's just with a female, it counts? Like you'd be cheating with a person? Shut UP.  Is Fergie's declaration of intent to keep her hands off other women a sly dig at her husband, who's been accused of late of lacking similar restraint? Or is it just the epiphany of a lady who's figured out that sapphic action is still action? Regardless, lesbian and bisexual women across the land will no doubt be disappointed to learn: Fergie's London Bridge is not a gay dispensation zone.

Lambert’s acts of aggression were unequivocally extreme, but they were not without provocation. In footage of the game, BYU’s #7, the ironically named Carlee Payne, moves in front of Lambert and then clearly delivers a neat elbow thrust to her chest. That’s what known in sports as writing a check your ass is going to cash. Lambert promptly responds with a swift, deliberate punch to her back.

Oh, but Lambert’s just getting warmed up. Later, BYU’s #21, Kassidy Shumway, sidles up in front of Lambert and subtly grabs her shorts. Lambert replies by yanking her ponytail so hard the girl lands face down in the field. Taste the turf, Utah! There’s more: A compilation of her greatest hits from the game shows Lambert in a variety of unsporting and borderline violent plays. Brigham Young had the last laugh however, defeating New Mexico 1 – 0.

After her suspension, Lambert promptly apologized, saying, "I am deeply and wholeheartedly regretful for my actions... I let my emotions get the best of me in a heated situation." But the mea culpa did little to quell the hoopla, as fans and pundits alike have scrambled to make sense of a young woman behaving in such an unladylike way. USA Today’s Mike Lopresti tut-tutted yesterday that women acting like “knuckleheads just like the men” amounted to “another proud day for Title IX, ” adding that ”I'm not sure that's a slice of gender equity that women's athletics should desire to have." And ESPN said, “What is rare is when women athletes are involved in any type of misbehavior,” gasping that it was "practically unbelievable." Fancy that, women misbehaving! The only explanation must be that they’re acting like men!

Those big brutes with the facial hair, it’s true, have been acting out in sports forever. In tennis, John McEnroe and Ilie Nastase are remembered almost as much for their meltdowns as their victories. Roberto Alomar’s main claim to Major League baseball fame is his 1996 spitting incident. One of the most famous moments in recent professional soccer wasn’t a triumphant goal but Zinedine Zidane’s decisive head butt during the 2006 World Cup. And then there’s Mike Tyson, whose taste for Evander Holyfield’s ear managed to take a sport that’s all about pummeling the daylights out of your opponent and make it seem somehow brutal.

Yet a woman behaving aggressively is still something of a novelty. When Serena Williams got into it with an official at the US Open over a foot fault in September, the Daily News called it a “display of testosterone… proof that women athletes can behave every bit as irrationally as men."

 And speaking of Lambert in today’s New York Times, North Carolina women’s soccer team coach Anson Dorrance said that “The world has changed. Women play with just as much intensity, work ethic and sometimes aggression as guys,” adding however that “women are held to a different standard.”

Adding to the Lambert fascination is that where there are physically fit 20-year-old women playing dirty, there are those who find their actions hot. CBS News’s 48 Hours called Lambert an “attractive, aggressive…” player. On YouTube, meanwhile, a truly stunning number of the comments have been expressions of disappointment that Lambert and her opponents did not proceed from blows to making out, proving yet again that some people have difficulty distinguishing between real life and Cinemax After Dark. 

There you have it: whupass opening women are manly. But sexy! Gee, no wonder so many sports fans are feeling confused.

Without disputing the basic fact that men and women are physically, hormonally and socially conditioned to be different, maybe it’s time to put aside the facile explanation of aggressive behavior as strictly maculine. Because along with it is the gentle hint that if sports are aggressive and men are all foot stampy and tough, then women’s actions aren’t quite real. And tangled up  in the "Don't be like us big bad animals, ladies!" message is a boastful subtext of athletic machismo.

Maybe anybody, male or female, who’s in the throes of an intense soccer game and gets elbowed and crotch grabbed might react in a spontaneous and physical way. That’s not excusing it, by the way, that’s simply not assuming it’s a guy thing. As Gotham Girls roller derby player Miss American Thighs told me today, “There aren't a lot of aggressive sports for women, but women are just as competitive.” She added, “What Lambert was doing wasn't aggressive (in the sportsmanlike category), it was illegal. That has nothing to do with balls or penises, just assholes.” Lambert, the most despicable person in sports and the hot warrior babe, is in fact like any other  athlete out there. She fouls and fights and screws up and plays her heart out.  And she does just like a woman. 

It seems that the University of Oxford has stepped up involvement in a politically motivated campaign which is not only in sharp contrast with its academic objectives, but also is linked with a chain of events in post-Iranian presidential elections blamed for [sic] British interference both at home and abroad

Remember how Iran blamed Agha-Soltan's death on foreign operatives? You better believe this letter is intentionally implicating the illustrious Oxford University in that alleged British conspiracy. It claims that her death was part of a "complicated and planned" event, and that she died "far from the scene of protests erupted after the June presidential election." The letter also cautions that this is "a criminal case, which is still under investigation by the Iranian police." The subtext: The probe called for by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will unveil the true foreign culprits. When that happens, prepare to be humiliated, Oxford:

We believe that your college decision to abuse Neda's case to establish a graduate scholarship will highly politicize your academic institution, undermining your scientific credibility -- along with British press which made exceptionally a lot of hue and cry on Neda's death -- will make Oxford at odd [sic] with the rest of the world's academic institution.

At odds with the rest of the world -- you mean, kind of like Iran?

On a more positive and less maddening note, the very first scholarship recipient, Arianne Shahvisi, had this to say: "I extend my sincere condolences to the Agha-Soltan family, and hope that in succeeding in my studies at Oxford, I can do justice to the name of their brave and gifted daughter."

Technically, that's not true -- 11 paragraphs into the article, the religions of the couple in question, Adrianna and Robert Potter, are mentioned (she's a lapsed Catholic, he's a Methodist). And after 10 paragraphs, the author, Manya A. Brachear, notes, "Such decisions, doctors say, are often informed and framed by faith" -- which is enough to justify focusing on that angle for one article. But it would be nice if said article either led with a clear indication that it was doing just that, or else acknowledged that "What would Jesus do?" is not the central question facing every couple with embryos in storage. Laura continues, "There is no one saying, 'Hey, guess what, embryos aren't people' -- whether that comes from a scientist, an atheist, or simply a different set of Christians. There's also no 'here are some of the things that stem cell research is used for' info. It's all, 'Your dead babies will go to Science, whatever that is.'"

That's an exaggeration, but not by all that much. Writes Brachear, "At this time last year, doctors say, the absence of government funds combined with the economic downturn stalled most meaningful embryonic science, making donations to research a riskier and more radical option. Some laboratories stopped accepting donations, forcing some fertility centers to hold on to embryos despite parents' preference to devote them to research." So, wait, deciding that you'd like your embryos to go to science somehow becomes "risky" and "radical" if there's a chance they might not be used for research? I guess that makes sense if, like Adrianna Potter, you only favor donating embryos to science to promote "the creation of new life" -- she notes that research led to their ability to conceive via IVF, and would like to help other couples. Her husband, Robert, either wants to keep them "to fulfill God's mandate to be fruitful and multiply" or donate them to another infertile couple. So for them, donating embryos to science with no guarantee that they'll be used might indeed seem risky and/or radical. But what about couples who make that choice simply because they'd rather see the embryos go to good use than discard them? Because they believe in the promise of stem cell research -- and at this time last year, were probably hoping that Obama would revoke the ban on federal funding for it, which he did? At this point in the article, there's still been no clear acknowledgment that this particular debate has a faith-specific context -- but any other context is completely ignored.

And that's the subtle part. Later, Brachear writes, "Robert doesn't trust that every embryo [donated to science] fulfills a greater purpose. He can't imagine sentencing two potential children to short lives that would end in a laboratory." I'm sorry, I can get on board with "potential children," emphasis on potential, but short lives? No. The idea that an embryo has a "life" that can be ended, even when it's never seen the inside of a woman's uterus, is a purely religious one; Robert seems to hold that belief as part of his faith, which is fine, but could we please get some quotation marks, or even a non-specific "he said" on that? Because otherwise, you're asking the reader to accept the concept of embryonic personhood as a given. And boy, this reader doesn't.

As Laura said, an article about Christians struggling with a decision that raises serious questions about their own faith versus science is a very interesting idea -- and if the headline or subhead or first nine and a half paragraphs indicated that that is, in fact, the subject here, I would have an entirely different take on the execution. Instead, a peculiarly religious dilemma is universalized -- "Families struggle with science, faith," reads the subhead -- and people who have no faith-based qualms about donating embryos to science (including many religious people, as well as those who don't have faith-basied qualms, period) are simply not acknowledged. Not to mention, "struggling with science" is presented as wondering whether your embryos' "lives" will have meaning in a lab -- which, call me crazy, still sounds more like struggling with faith. At a time when anti-choice groups are sincerely attempting to redefine personhood as "the beginning of biological development" -- raising the possibility of everything from miscarriages being investigated as potential homicides to pregnant women qualifying for the carpool lane -- blurring the line between religious beliefs and observable facts is what I would call "risky" and "radical."